Why Al-Qaeda Just Won’t Die

OsombieBy Sebastian Gorka:

These days, zombies are all the rage. Viewing figures for the season finale of the hit show The Walking Dead are to be envied. Blockbuster movies featuring Brad Pitt proclaim the genre, as do popular books reconceiving Jane Austen among the living dead.

Perhaps this is no coincidence. The fascination with zombies may be fed subconsciously by a real-world global foe which bears more than a passing resemblance to George Romero’s iconic monsters. Al-Qaeda, even if not actually peopled by animated corpses, is a cult of death. Ayman al-Zawahiri said exactly that when he declared that he and his cohorts love death more than we love life. On top of that, it seems that—despite declarations to the contrary from the White House and more than thirteen years of U.S. counterterrorism operations—al-Qaeda is far from deceased.

Slide2_0In fact, in at least one respect, al-Qaeda may be even worse than the menace of the walking dead. In the latter’s case, they at least have the decency to die when you strike them hard enough in the head. Not so with al-Qaeda. We killed Osama bin Laden, its founder and head, more than two years ago, yet the body of jihadi terrorism fights on. So much so that in his recent open testimony before Congress, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stated that al Qaeda now has operational centers in in twelve nations around the world, from Mali to Syria.(1) By way of comparison, in 2001, when we started the war against al-Qaeda, it had operations centers in just one country: Afghanistan. Indeed, as the graph below, based upon open-source unclassified databases illustrates, al-Qaeda is on the rise.

So why is it proving so hard to kill al-Qaeda? Because as a nation we have broken the fundamental rules of strategy: we have failed to execute an objective analysis of why the threat exists and what it wants. Worse, in the last four years we have distorted reality even further by allowing preconceived notions and politically driven strictures to influence and limit our understanding of the enemy.

Know Thine Enemy

I spend my days teaching strategy to the military, federal law enforcement and their intelligence community colleagues. Whoever the audience, we always start in the same place: if you have an enemy that you want to defeat, you have to know who they are, where they came from and what their strategy is. The military calls this an Estimate of the Situation, or more operationally, Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield. In the decade-plus war with al-Qaeda, we have been erratic and counterfactual in our EoS and IPB.

After 9/11, the President declared a global war on “terror.” The term was an odd one, for terror is the tool of several types of actor, especially dictators who use it systematically against their own people and dissidents abroad. Yet our GWOT was not targeted against recognized practitioners of terror, such as the Kim dynasty in North Korea or the mullahs in Iran. Nor did our global campaign target all terrorist groups. We did not deploy Delta Force against Basque separatists in Spain, or the eco-terrorist ELF (Earth Liberation Front), but against a very specific foe: those that were responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Those “practitioners of terror” justified their murder of unarmed civilians with a religious narrative that saw the West—Dar al Harb, or the House of War—as having declared war on Islam, and had as their strategic objective the re-establishment of the theocratic empire of Islam known as the Caliphate.

Yet from the very start, the President and his team assiduously disassociated al-Qaeda from Islam, representing bin Laden and his followers as renegade extremists whose actions were un-Islamic. This, despite the fact that their fatwas leveraged the words of Allah and Mohammed, those Koranic passages and sections of the Haddith (sayings and tales of Mohammed) that explicitly call for the death of the infidel.(2)

To be clear, as a nation America was never at war with Islam. Nor is it now. We are, however, at war with people who have a fundamental understanding of Islam, and whose broader legitimacy is very difficult to theologically undermine due to their reliance on the ancient tenets of an often-violent religion. But what exactly is al-Qaeda, and where did it come from?

Root Causes

The story starts with the Caliphate, which—contrary to popular conception—is not some abstract idea invented by a small group of extremists. The theocratic empire of Islam, the polity that integrated faith and politics and which was founded by Mohammed, existed for over a thousand years. True, its center moved over time, from Mecca to Damascus, then to Baghdad and finally to Istanbul, but it was a real living thing which still existed at the beginning of the 20th century. By then, it was under Turkish control and most people called it the Ottoman Empire. Yet this was the Caliphate, and there was even a Caliph, or emperor of Islam.

Unfortunately for the Ottomans, after World War I broke out they decided to side with the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Germany. As a result, by 1918 they were on the losing side of the world’s first global war. In an attempt to salvage the Muslim empire after this defeat, and prevent total dismemberment and disarmament along the lines of what occurred to Germany and Austria-Hungary at Versailles, the Ottomans reinvented themselves under the leadership of a very charismatic and intelligent army officer named Mustafa Kemal. Kemal, who would later change his name to Atatürk—meaning Father of All Turks—would reinvent the nation that would eventually become the Republic of Turkey.

Atatürk’s strategy was to convince the West that his people no longer were a threat and that his nation should be recognized as a member of their community. This required a wholesale reinvention of his country, the key pillars of which were the separation of Islam and politics and the broader secularization of Turkey. To that end, he not only banned traditional Turkic-Islamic dress for officials of the state but replaced the Arabic alphabet with a modified version of our Roman one.(3) Most significantly, in 1924 Atatürk formally decreed the dissolution of the Caliphate.(4) It is no accident, therefore, that less than five years later in the Suez region of Egypt, one Hasan al-Banna established the Ikwan Muslimin, or Muslim Brotherhood, the avowed mission of which was—and still is—to reestablish the Caliphate which had been “unjustly” dissolved.

After World War I, certain Middle Eastern territories that had been part of the Ottoman Empire were put under the mandate of the British government. These lands include what we today call Israel, as well as the Palestinian territories (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). After WWII, as violence escalated between Arabs and Jews and between these groups and British mandate forces, London decided that after six years of fighting the Nazis, the British had no future as the governors of the Middle East and pulled out of Palestine. It was under these circumstances that the new Jewish state of Israel was declared.

From the Muslim perspective, and the view of the Arab states that invaded Israel the day after it declared its statehood, this was the second seismic blow to the psyche of the ummah, the global community of Islam. From the perspective of the true believer, this territory is sacred Muslim soil. So much so, that before the Qibla—the Islamic direction of prayer—became Mecca, all Muslims had to face Jerusalem five times a day as they prayed to their creator, Jerusalem being the third holiest site in Islam and the place from which Mohammed was said to have risen into heaven.

However, the most important year of all for anyone who wishes to understand why 9/11 happened and what al-Qaeda stands for, is 1979. In the Muslim world, which follows a shorter lunar calendar initiated when Mohammed journeyed from Mecca to Medina (Yathrib), 1979 represented a turn of the century, the shift from 1399 into the year 1400. And just as with other cultures, there were many in the Muslim world who had great expectations for the new century, that significant events would occur. And so they did.

First came the Iranian Revolution. Although a Shi’a event, it had great ramifications for all Muslims. With the removal of the Shah and the complete rejection of the Western model of the secular nation-state, the revolution had at its core the religious imperative that Islam and politics cannot be separated. That is why the real center of power in the Islamic Republic since 1979 has been a man of the cloth and not a politician. This message of the reintegration of faith and politics and the continued success of Iran in rejecting the Western way of politics is an example to all Muslims.

Second was the attack against the holiest site in Islam: the Siege of the Grand Mosque of Mecca. As the Muslim world was collectively entering the year 1400, more than a thousand jihadi terrorists stormed the Grand Mosque and declared a Holy War against “false Muslims.” The terrorists managed to control the most important site in Islam, the epicenter of the annual hajj pilgrimage, for almost two weeks. More importantly, it turned out that the radicals had been encouraged and in fact blessed by members of the Saudi ulema, or clerical class, who agreed that Islam had lost its way and had to be cleansed by force.

The siege was eventually broken by French commandos who had been smuggled into Mecca after being hastily converted to Islam. But the true geostrategic significance of the attack came afterwards, as the King of Saudi Arabia, in an effort to secure the House of Saud, made a pact with the ulema who had endorsed the jihad.(5) The deal was straightforward: in exchange for the support and patronage of the monarchy, the clerics would not propagate the ideology of jihad on the soil of the Kingdom. However, the export and dissemination of jihadi ideology outside of Saudi Arabia into non-Muslim lands was not only permissible but would be supported by the government.

Lastly, that December, came the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. With the unprovoked assault against a Muslim country by godless communists, the seeds were sown for the redefinition of jihad as a global brand, a brand that would exploit the Western desire to hurt the Kremlin for its military expansion into Southwest Asia.

One of the non-Afghan mujahedeen that took up the fight was a Palestinian Jordanian named Abdullah Azzam. With a PhD in fiqh—Islamic jurisprudence—from the most important Sunni institution in the world, al-Azhar University in Cairo, this charismatic teacher established the Services Bureau (MAK) to recruit Muslims from around the world to come to Pakistan, learn the rudiments of guerrilla warfare and then be deployed into Afghanistan against the Soviet forces. The same year he would release a fatwa entitled Defense of Muslim Lands, in which he would call all Muslims to Holy War, declaring jihad to be fard ayn, an individual and universal obligation of all believers.(6)

Azzam’s logic was clear, and compelling. Since Atatürk had dissolved the empire in 1924, there was no longer a Caliph or commander-in-chief who could declare a holy war. As a result, it was up to each and every believer to deploy himself. Eventually, according to authoritative estimates, the MAK would churn out between 50,000 and 100,000 fighters, including the man who became Azzam’s deputy, Osama bin Laden.(7) A decade later, after the Soviets had been vanquished in Afghanistan, Azzam would be assassinated in Pakistan and bin Laden would take over control of his organization and rename it The Base for the Propagation of Holy War against Jews and Crusaders, or al-Qaeda, as we call it in the West.

Read more at The Journal of International Security Affairs

Dr. Sebastian Gorka is Associate Dean and Associate Professor of War and Conflict Studies at National Defense University in Washington and a regular instructor and advisor for SOCOM, US Army Special Operations Command, and the FBI. Dr Gorka is also the National Security Editor for Breitbart.com.

Professors Shill for Islamism

EGYPT-NESF ELDONIABy Andrew Harrod:

Only ten people, including two imams and a reporter, showed up to hear University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, professor of religious studies Carl W. Ernst deliver the “First Annual Ibrahim Abu-Rabi Lecture” on May 7 at the International Council for Middle East Studies (ICMES) in the Georgetown section of Washington, D.C. Ernst was introduced by ICMES founder and president Norton Mezvinsky, who came to ICMES after a 42-year career teaching Middle East history at Connecticut State University.

A self-professed “anti-Zionist,” Mezvinsky endorsed the infamous 1975 Zionism-is-racism U.N. resolution and developed amiable relations with the deranged anti-Semitic Lyndon LaRouche movement and once spoke at the LaRouchite Schiller Institute in Germany. He also co-authored Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel with the late Israel Shahak, whose work, MEF Fellow Asaf Romirowsky wrote, “rests on his conviction that Judaism is the font of all evil and that most global issues can ultimately be traced back to Judaism via a world-wide Jewish conspiracy.”

In dedicating its inaugural lecture series to the memory of former ICMES director Ibrahim Abu-Rabi, ICMES signals its support of his radical ideology. Mezvinsky tearfully recalled his late “very good friend” and “distinguished scholar,” about whose book on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Sayyid Qutb Daniel Pipes wrote, “author and subject meld into a nearly seamless whole” so that, for Qutb and likeminded individuals, Abu-Rabi was “their apostle to an English-speaking audience.”

Appreciatively hearing Mezvinsky were Imams Mohammad Magid and Johari Abdul-Malik. The Sudanese-born Magid heads two groups with disturbing Islamist connections, the Muslim Brotherhood-founded, terrorism unindicted co-conspirator Islamic Society of North America and the All Dulles Area Muslim Societymosque in northern Virginia. The American convert Abdul-Malik, meanwhile, who called Magid “my teacher” at a press conference the day after the ICMES lecture, is outreach director at northern Virginia’s Dar al-Hijrah mosque, known for many years of attracting violent individuals, some personally defended by Abdul-Malik.

Ernst used PowerPoint to illustrate a chapter on Islamic ethics from his 2004 book, Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World. Hackneyed accusations of “modern Islamophobia” with a “connection to racism & anti-Semitism” in an aggressive, post-Cold War Western society seeking “another opponent to take the place of the Soviet Union” introduced Ernst’s comments. “Islamophobia,” Ernst elaborated, “draws upon a well-established attack” upon Catholics previously called disloyal to a secular state.

Read more at Front Page

The Muslim Brotherhood’s “Peaceful Conquest”

by Valentina Colombo:

“Political and religious terrorism began with the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood…” — Farag Foda, Egyptian intellectual murdered by Islamists in 1992, in Terrorism [al-Irhab]

Islamist movements have different tactics… but their goal is always the same: Get in and impose sharia law to establish an Islamic state.

The problem is not so much the Muslim Brotherhood as the schizophrenia of governments that one day condemn them and the next day work with them.

“What I think is important about the Muslim Brotherhood,” British Prime Minister David Cameron said on April 1, while announcing a long-overdue investigation of the activities of Muslim Brotherhood in the UK and its involvement in February’s terror attack at the Egyptian resort of Taba, “is that we understand what this organisation is, what it stands for, what its beliefs are in terms of the path of extremism and violent extremism, what its connections are with other groups, what its presence is here in the United Kingdom. Our policies should be informed by a complete picture of that knowledge. It is an important piece of work because we will only get our policy right if we fully understand the true nature of the organisation that we are dealing with.”

 

“The objective, then, is to strike terror into the hearts of God’s enemies, who are also the enemies of the advocates of Islam…” — Sayyid Qutb, chief ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and 1960s.

The Egyptian Brotherhood’s reaction, published on its English website, was immediate:

The Muslim Brotherhood has always had a perfectly reputable and verifiable history record and a correct understanding of religion ever since it was founded, more than 86 years ago. The group is ready and willing to cooperate with all efforts to understand its beliefs, policies and positions. It also denounces all media campaigns that try to demonize the group and link it to violent incidents which it condemned in no ambiguous terms at the time, the most recent of which was the attack on a tourist bus in Taba (in Egypt’s Sinai peninsula) in February 2014.[…]

The Brotherhood’s press release also pointed out the long-standing relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the UK:

First: The Brotherhood was surprised at the latest remarks, since all successive British governments had always been the most expertly informed about the group’s positions and peaceful approach. The group has not and will not change its principles or approach no matter how big or small it becomes, notwithstanding all the injustice it suffers, the cold-blooded murders and arbitrary arrests of its members.

Second: The group’s principles and ideology, which it has been teaching its members for more than eighty years in all parts of the world, from East to West, have been announced, published and thoroughly researched and studied by many Muslim and non-Muslim scholars, researchers and research centers all over the world – all of which affirmed, time and time again, that the group’s approach is perfectly peaceful and that all its methods are non-violent.

Third: The behavior and actions of all those who subscribe to the group’s principles and teachings, all those who belong to the Brotherhood, are evidently exemplary in compliance with the laws and regulations of the countries where they reside, and even in serving the countries where they are raised […]

The Muslim Brotherhood has indeed had a long history of relations with Britain. In 2010, Mark Curtis publishedSecret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam, a well documented essay that could save David Cameron a lot of research work. Curtis writes,

By 1942 Britain had definitely begun to finance the Brotherhood. On 18 May British embassy officials held a meeting with Egyptian Prime Minister Amin Osman Pacha, in which relations with the Muslim Brotherhood were discussed and a number of points were agreed. One was that ‘subsidies from the Wafd [Party] to the Ikhwani el Muslimin [Muslim Brotherhood] would be discreetly paid by the [Egyptian] government and they would require some financial assistance in this matter from the [British] Embassy.

A British embassy report from Cairo in late 1951 stated that the Brotherhood ‘possess[es] a terrorist organisation of long-standing which has never been broken by police action’, despite the recent arrests. However, the report otherwise downplayed the Brothers’ intentions towards the British, stating that they were ‘planning to send terrorists into the Canal Zone’ but ‘they do not intend to put their organisation as such into action against His Majesty’s forces’. Another report noted that although the Brotherhood had been responsible for some attacks against the British, this was probably due to ‘indiscipline’, and it ‘appears to conflict with the policy of the leaders’. (emphasis added)

Curtis’s analysis therefore emphasizes the cooperation and, more importantly, the relativistic approach of the British government to movement founded by Hasan al-Banna.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

The Muslim Brotherhood and Terrorist Organizations

by Valentina Colombo:

“[T]he organization of the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization, and anyone who asks either to reconcile with them, to join them or to ally with them is himself a terrorist.” — Refaat Saïd, leader of Egypt’s Socialist party, al-Tagammu’, and previously close friend of former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide, Mahdi Akef.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the motto of Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis is also the verse singled out by Hassan al Banna: “Fight them until there is no fitnah [discord], and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah.” [Qur’an, Sura VIII, verse 39]

The link between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is clear, and confirmed by Article 2 of the Charter of Hamas, which reads: “The Islamic Resistance movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine”.

A new terror group, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis [ABM], just officially entered the scene. Both the U.S. State Department and the British government included it, at the beginning of April, in their list of proscribed terrorist organizations.

The United Kingdom justified its decision as follows: “ABM is an Al Qa’ida inspired militant Islamist group based in the northern Sinai region of Egypt. The group is said to recruit within Egypt and abroad and aims to create an Egyptian state ruled by Sharia law. ABM is assessed to be responsible for a number of attacks on security forces in Egypt since 2011. The attacks appear to have increased since the overthrow of the Morsi government in July 2013. The group’s reach goes beyond the Sinai, with the group claiming responsibility for a number of attacks in Cairo and cross-border attacks against Israel. ABM has undertaken attacks using vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices and surface-to-air missiles. Examples of attacks for which the group has claimed responsibility include: an attack on the Egyptian Interior Minister in which a UK national was seriously injured (September, 2013); an attack on a police compound in Mansoura, killing at least 16 people, including 14 police officers (December 24, 2013), and an attack on a tourist bus in which three South Koreans and their Egyptian driver died (January 16, 2014).”

The decision taken by the British government against Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis came almost at the same time as the decision to start investigations on the activities of Muslim Brotherhood [MB] and its possible links with terrorism.

 

Terrorists from the group Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis.

There is however a link between ABM and the Muslim Brotherhood: the justification of jihad, based on the Koranic text.

Although in January 2014, after the December 24 attack — linked by the British government statement to ABM — the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood issued a declaration in which it denied any connection with ABM, Refaat Saïd, the leader of the Socialist Party, Tagammu’, said otherwise.

Saïd pointed out, during the visit of Catherine Ashton to Egypt on the eve of its presidential elections, that Ashton “wants to open channels for a reconciliation with the Muslim Brotherhood despite knowing perfectly well that Dr. Mohammed Morsi himself imported the organization of Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis and placed it in the Sinai. Morsi released many of its members from prison so they could carry out terror attacks in the Sinai region to take him back to power.”

Saïd bluntly added that “the organization of the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization, and anyone who asks either to reconcile with them, to join them or to ally with them is himself a terrorist.”[1]

Saïd, previously a close friend of Mahdi Akef, the former MB Supreme Guide, knows the Brotherhood closely.

In September 2013, after an attack on the Egyptian Minister of the Interior, Major General Ahmad ‘Abd al-Halim explained that “Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis is an organization including 15 organizations acting and working in Gaza and belonging to the sphere of al-Qaeda and Hamas.”[2]

Colonel Farouq Hamdan — an aide to former Egyptian Interior Minister — also commented that “the attack was carried out with the blessing of, and consultation between the organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood and Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, which was funded by the Brotherhood.”[3]

The connection between Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, al-Qaeda and Hamas — already on the official lists of proscribed terrorist organizations in the West — and the Muslim Brotherhood — which is already presently on the proscribed terror organizations of Russia (February 2003), Syria (21 October 2013), Egypt (25 December 2013), Saudi Arabia (7 March 2013) and the United Arab Emirates (9 March 2014) — is sometimes a direct one, and sometimes an ideological link.

The link between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is clear and straight, and confirmed by Article 2 of the Charter of Hamas, which reads: “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization, the largest Islamic Movement in the modern era. It is characterized by a profound understanding, by precise notions and by a complete comprehensiveness of all concepts of Islam in all domains of life: views and beliefs, politics and economics, education and society, jurisprudence and rule, indoctrination and teaching, the arts and publications, the hidden and the evident, and all the other domains of life.”

It would appear rather more difficult to demonstrate the link between the Muslim Brotherhood and some markedly jihadist movements such as Al Qaeda, Gamaat al-Islamiyya — also internationally recognized as a terrorist organization — and Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis.

In 2005, Sylvain Besson published, for the first time in a Western language, a document in his book, The Conquest of the West: The Secret Project of Islamists, often referred to as “The Secret Project.”

The document, “Towards a global strategy of Islamic politics (starting points, elements, essential conditions and missions),” was found in 2001 by Swiss authorities in the house of Youssef Nada, one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in the West

similar version of the “Secret Project” was also aired in 2012 in a documentary film about the MB in the West by American journalist Glenn Beck. What is strange is that no one has given due importance to the contents of both documents.

“The Secret Project” explains the twelve starting points of the strategy of the Brotherhood in the West. For example:

“Step 5: Work to establish the Islamic state, in parallel make progressive efforts aiming at controlling the local centres of power through institutional work.

“Step 6: Work with loyalty alongside Islamic groups and institutions in various fields by agreeing on a common ground in order to cooperate on points of convergence while putting aside the points of divergence.

“Step 7: Accept the principle of temporary cooperation between Islamic movements and nationalist movements […]”

In Step 9, jihad is finally mentioned: “Build a permanent force of the Islamic preaching and support movements engaged in jihad in the Islamic world, in different ways and within the limits of the possible….Get in touch with any new movement engaged in jihad wherever in the planet, with Islamic minorities, and create walkways, according to requirements, to support and establish a partnership. Keep the jihad on alert in the umma [Muslim community] […].”

“The Secret Project” calls for a bond, a better collaboration with jihadi movements and it would seem that strategically, leaders and members of the MB consider both jihad and jihadi movements fundamental to achieve their goals.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

UK Mulls Ban on Brotherhood, Violent Response Threatened

david cameron

The UK gov’t will not focus only on “violent extremism,” but the ideologies driving it. That is a sharp difference from the U.S.

By Ryan Mauro:

The British government is signaling that it may join the Arab coalition against the Muslim Brotherhood by announcing an investigation of the group spearheaded by the ambassador to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis joined Egypt in banning the Brotherhood as a terrorist group last month.

Prime Minister David Cameron said, “We want to challenge the extremist narrative that some Islamist organizations have put out.”

He explained that the British government would not focus only on “violent extremism,” but the ideologies driving it. That is a sharp difference from the U.S. government, which will not even say the word “Islamist” and has a narrow focus on violence.

A government spokesman frankly admitted that the British government believes its intelligence on the Brotherhood is lacking. He said, “The Muslim Brotherhood has risen in prominence in recent years but our understanding of the organization—its philosophy and values—has not kept pace with this.”

The MI5 domestic intelligence service will review Brotherhood activity in the U.K., where it has active offices. To date, British policy allows the Brotherhood to operate in the country without restriction, harboring leaders that fled Egypt.

The MI6 foreign intelligences service will review Brotherhood activity abroad, including whether it was involved in a bombing of a tourist bus in Egypt in February that killed three South Koreans. Ansar Jerusalem, a Salafist group even more radical than the Brotherhood,claimed responsibility.

The Brotherhood claims it is opposed to violence inside Egypt and is not involved in such acts, but Salafist supporters of the Brotherhood often are. Raymond Ibrahim has documented this Brotherhood game and translated transcripts of alleged phone calls between then-President Mohammed Morsi and the brother of Ayman al-Zawahiri regarding secret collaboration.

Meanwhile, the Brotherhood issued a thinly veiled threat that the response to a government probe might be terrorist attacks.

Read more at Clarion Project

**************

GMBDW has more on the MB leader making the threat:

Muslim Brotherhood Leader In Exile Warns UK Not To Ban Brotherhood; Says Increased Risk Of Terrorism Would Result 

UK media is reporting on a statement by a Muslim Brotherhood leader living in exile in the UK warning that banning the Brotherhood in the UK would lead to an increased risk of terrorism. According to a report in The Times:

Ibrahim MunirBanning the Muslim Brotherhood will leave Britain at greater risk of terrorist attacks, the group’s most senior leader in the UK said yesterday.

Speaking for the first time since David Cameron announced an investigation into the organisation’s alleged links to violent extremism, Ibrahim Mounir said that it risked alienating moderate Muslims.

“If this [ban] happened, this would make a lot of people in Muslim communities think that [peaceful] Muslim Brotherhood values . . . didn’t work and now they are designated a terrorist group, which would make the doors open for all options,” he said. Asked if he meant open to violence, he replied: “Any possibility.”

Mr Mounir, 77, added: “This would make more problems than we ever expect, not just for Britain, for all Islamic organisations round the world holding peaceful ideologies. If the UK makes this option, you can’t predict [what would happen] with Muslims around the globe, especially the big Muslim organisations close to the Muslim Brotherhood and sharing its ideology.”

Read the rest here (pay site)

Ibrahim Munir Mustafa (aka Ibrahim Munir, Ibrahim Mounir) was referred to in the past by the Egyptian Brotherhood as an Executive Bureau member of the Brotherhood’s International Organization while an Egyptian news report identifies him as the Secretary-General of the International Organization and one of its founders in 1982 as well as a spokesman for the Brotherhood in London. The latter Arabic language news report also provides some biographical detail on Mr. Munir who it says was sentenced to life imprisonment in Egypt in the 1950′s in connection with the events following the attempted assassination of then Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. Following his early release in 1975, the report says Mr. Munir traveled and worked in the Gulf States on behalf of the Brotherhood following which he applied for and was granted political asylum in the UK. Mr. Munir is also known to be the general supervisor of the London-based Muslim Brotherhood publication known as the ‘Risalat Al-Ikhwan’ (Muslim Brotherhood Message). Mr. Munir drew international attention in 2010 when he was one of five members charged by Egyptian prosecutors with money laundering and raising funds abroad. In 2013, an Egyptian newspaper report, no longer available online, provided some detail regarding Mr. Munir’s alleged role in the scheme.

*************

To understand the Muslim Brotherhood’s propaganda read this:

The al Qaeda threat in Turkey

download (54)By KAREN HODGSON, July 8, 2013

1. INTRODUCTION

The threat of al Qaeda in Turkey is significantly understudied, considering the nature and number of targets against which the terror group has plotted attacks, including many targets affiliated with the United States. Perhaps this is because the Turkish police are successful in thwarting such attacks; foiled plots are not as sensational as those that are carried out and cause tragedy. Or it could be because terror in Turkey has historically been synonymous with the terrorism of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which distracts from the al Qaeda threat. It is also easy to dismiss Turkey as an unlikely target for al Qaeda, given its 99 percent Muslim population and currently Islamic-rooted government.

A look at al Qaeda’s targets, which appear to be concentrated on US, Turkish, British, Jewish, and Christian facilities, demonstrates the point. Plots involving American targets include a plan to attack the İncirlik Base in Adana in 2003; a foiled attack on the NATO summit in Istanbul in May 2004 that was to be attended by then-President George W. Bush; and an attack on the US Consulate in Istanbul in July 2008, which killed three policemen. In July 2011, an attack on the US Embassy in Ankara was thwarted just before Secretary of State Clinton’s visit. In April 2013, Turkish police found evidence of a new plot linked to al Qaeda to bomb the US Embassy in Ankara. As recently as May 2013, Turkish police uncovered a plot by the al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front to conduct sarin gas attacks against Turkish and American targets, a relatively new phenomenon which appears to be a result of the spillover effects of the Syrian war into Turkey.

Other targets include suicide attacks on the British Consulate, the headquarters of British HSBC international bank, and two big synagogues in Istanbul in November 2003, which killed some 60 people and injured at least 700; a possible attack on the Pope during his visit to Turkey in November 2006; and a plot to attack the Bilderberg Summit in Istanbul in June 2007. Turkish authorities have also intercepted al Qaeda plans to conduct attacks on churches and clergy in Ankara, Turkish soldiers in Afghanistan after their takeover of the Kabul Regional Command in November 2009, the Turkish parliament building, and an Israeli cruise ship to Turkey.

These incidents suggest that the al Qaeda threat in Turkey persists. In fact, an al Qaeda-linked document found during a recent raid in Turkey said that it was more beneficial for the group to target Turkey than the West. Routine operations and mass arrests of suspected al Qaeda members and sympathizers indicate the presence of a support network for its cause within Turkey. These indications, combined with the recent emergence of jihadists in Syria, and the presence of Al Nusra Front elements along certain parts of Turkey’s 570-mile border with Syria, make this a threat worth examining.

There are challenges in trying to decipher the al Qaeda threat in Turkey, however. Reports based on open sources such as this one have to make analyses based only on the information that is available. The media does not give much attention to thwarted attacks. And the Turkish press does not publish names of people arrested, to protect the privacy of the individuals and investigations; instead, only the suspects’ initials are published. Moreover, many al Qaeda operatives have one or more code names. In addition, many of the details of operations or what they reveal is not reported. Nevertheless, some conclusions can still be made about the characteristics of al Qaeda in Turkey today.
2. WHY IS TURKEY A TARGET? HOW DOES AL QAEDA VIEW TURKEY?

Al Qaeda’s narrative on Turkey suggests that it views Turkey as a Muslim traitor that abolished the Caliphate at the end of the Ottoman Empire, which for al Qaeda marks the start of the “Muslim world’s humiliation and contempt over the last 80 years.” Al Qaeda views Turkey — a country with free elections and a liberal economy, a member of NATO, and a strategic ally of the United States — as a US or Western puppet. Turkey was also one of the first countries to recognize Israel, and takes part in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, which leads al Qaeda to accuse Turkey of “cooperating with Israel” and “killing Muslims in Afghanistan.”

Read more at Long War Journal

The UK Confronts Islamism

kl-450x272

by :

A century ago the murder of a British soldier in broad daylight in London would have been an act of war. In this post-imperial and post-everything age, an atrocity leads to a task force which produces a report which is then filed in a desk drawer by the undersecretary for something or other.

Like clockwork, the murder of Lee Rigby led to a task force and to a report. The report is 7 pages long. It’s possible to read it in much less than the twenty minutes that it took London police to respond to the murder in progress. You could even get through it a few times in real time while a Muslim convert who describes himself as a soldier of Allah saws away at a fallen Englishman’s head with no one to stop him.

There is a thing that organizations say when they know that they are hip deep in a crisis. They say that “we are taking this seriously.”

The report, “Tackling Extremism in the UK” certainly takes matters seriously. The evidence of that is not so much in the report, as in the task force which included the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, four Secretaries of State, three Ministers, one Chancellor, one Lord Chancellor and a partridge in a pear tree.

Like so many of the more “serious” and “sincere” efforts at tackling the biggest threat to civilization in the twenty-first century, the report mixes occasional good ideas with politically correct absurdities. It starts off by equating Islamophobia with Al Qaeda and rolls out a plan to fight back against Islamism.

“As the greatest risk to our security comes from Al Qa’ida and like-minded groups, and terrorist ideologies draw on and make use of extremist ideas, we believe it is also necessary to define the ideology of Islamist extremism,” the report states. And then it goes on to carefully avoid defining it except to contend that, whatever it is; it is not Islam.

“This is a distinct ideology which should not be confused with traditional religious practice. It is an ideology which is based on a distorted interpretation of Islam, which betrays Islam’s peaceful principles, and draws on the teachings of the likes of Sayyid Qutb.”

The mention of Sayyid Qutb is startling considering that the UK seemed to be pretending that the Muslim Brotherhood was a “moderate” group. Say what you will about Cameron, but I don’t see Obama chairing a task force that would produce a report denouncing the Muslim Brotherhood’s evil genius.

But Qutb’s mention feels like a random aberration thrown in by someone a little too knowing. Beyond that the only further definition of Islamist extremism is that, “they seek to impose a global Islamic state governed by their interpretation of Shari’ah as state law, rejecting liberal values such as democracy, the rule of law and equality.”

In other words, Islamists are seeking to impose Islam on everyone. But then they aren’t a distorted interpretation of Islam. Islamism is simply the organized political implementation of Islam in the same way that Nazism was the implementation of National Socialism and Marxism is the attempted implementation of Karl Marx’s ideas.

Apologists can argue that Marxism distorts Marx and that Islamism distorts Islam, but those remain unconvincing defenses. Implementing a set of ideas always distorts them, but realizing ideas is the only truly objective way to assess their merit by seeing their consequences.

What the report is clumsily getting at is the idea that Islam is legitimate in private practice, but not in public imposition. It’s Islam when a Muslim goes to a mosque or avoids alcohol, but Islamism when he harasses barflies or chops off heads under the dictates of Islamic law. Unfortunately this distinction has no meaning in Islam which was never rewired to function as a private religion in a secular state.

America dealt with the clash between religion and tolerance by separating church and state allowing churches to retain their full doctrine while secularizing the machinery of the state.  Europe dealt with it by secularizing and liberalizing national churches to such a degree that they no longer had any religious content that anyone could object to.

Islam was absent from Europe when this rewiring took place. Unlike its Christian and Jewish antagonists, it hasn’t been liberalized or secularized. And it insists on being a public religion because theocracy is what it was built to do. Islam was not the religion of the oppressed. It was the religion of the oppressors. It equates morality with authority. If it doesn’t control the public square, then it has no function.

To Europeans, the infringement of religious values on public life is considered extremism. More so than blowing up buses. But Islam is dedicated to doing exactly that. It is an unreconstructed theocracy.

Read more at Front Page

Coptic Leaders Condemn Obama Adviser’s Anti-Coptic Tweets

by John Rossomando
IPT News
October 11, 2013

Jihadist Ideology: The Core Texts

GettyImages_1066481602-e1290208936609

From The Westminster Institute:

Together these texts reveal not only the ideological foundation for jihad but also the strategy and tactics.  Dr. Sebastian Gorka provides an overview of these core texts, including their history, evolution and application.  Familiarity with and understanding of these texts is essential for anyone engaged in counter-terrorism, from the policymaker to the investigator to the street cop. These four texts have come to be recognized as constituting a canon in jihadist thinking:

Sayyid Qutb Milestones

Abdullah Azzam Defense of the Muslim Lands

S. K. Malik The Quranic Concept of Power

Ayman Al-Zawahiri Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner

________________________________________________________________________________________

This paper is the transcript of a briefing given by Dr. Gorka at the Westminster Institute on October 5th, 2010.

Listen to Audio at the link provided 

The Enemy Has a Plan

The message of my presentation is a simple one.  Firstly, if you want to understand the enemy, as one British policeman put it, “Read what they say.” These individuals are not shy, they like the limelight.  The CIA’s Open Source Center, for example, has compiled a huge unclassified collection of what Osama bin Laden has said over the years.  Anyone who wants to can read it.

Secondly, we must understand al Qaeda not as something that was created by bin Laden simply on the foundations of the Arab Mujahedeen movement.  Rather, Al Qaeda is the product of decades of ideological evolution that started with the Muslim Brotherhood. You could even argue it is in fact the product of centuries of ideological and conceptual evolution going back to the 10th and 11th centuries, to authors such as Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328) and even to the Asharites.  But we will focus here on 20th century developments.  The point is that you must be able to place al Qaeda in the context of this larger ideological flow.

Thirdly, and this is really tough for government officials and for people who like the kinetic stuff–hunting people down, chasing high value targets– we must stop obsessing on violent jihad, al Qaeda’s (AQ) kinetic strain of warfare. I have built my career on this foe, on understanding and explaining Al Qaeda.  However, AQ does not keep me awake at night any longer.  I am not afraid of another 9/11.  Rather, I am afraid of AQ’s soft jihadist colleagues, those who will not use violence, but organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), who use legal tools, economic tools, and lawfare–law as a weapon–to undermine our constitutional order.  That is by far the more difficult threat for us to deal with because our national security establishment is not geared towards this indirect sort of warfare and because we have not yet woken up to the seriousness of this threat.  But we have to remember one thing, and this is my fourth point. Both bin Laden, both AQ and organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood have the same objective.  They simply use different tools to arrive there. They both wish sharia compliance on the United States, a wiping away of the U.S. Constitution and the creation of a global Caliphate.  They are on the same team; they simply use different tools to win their fight.

In the next 40 minutes I am going to work through some of the most important ideologues in the enemy’s camp and give you some insights as to how they understand this war, and then I will get to the “so what?” question.  The bottom line is that the enemy has a plan, and he has made no secret of it.  It is written out and made clear for all who care to read it.  For anybody who works in the national security arena, it is your duty to be familiar with the enemy’s plan, to read and understand those who conceived of the conceptual framework which brought us September 11th, the Fort Hood massacre and the attempted Times Square attack.

Sayyid Qutb, Milestones

Let us start with Sayyid Qutb, perhaps the most well known of the original jihadi ideologues.  Why is he significant?  Because his book, Milestones, is the roadmap, the justification for events such as September 11th.  What is his significance in one sentence? His argument is that the world is heretical, it is to be forcibly cleansed by Islam, and Islam is not to be understood as just a religion. You cannot treat it like Buddhism, Taoism, or Judaism.  It is much more than that.  To Sayyid Qutb, Islam is a revolutionary party.

Who-is-QutbWho is Qutb?  Let us put the author into context.  He was born in Egypt in 1906.  He was trained as a teacher, as a person versed in the educational sciences.  He learned the Koran by heart by the age of ten, and then he began his professional career as a civil servant in the Egyptian Ministry of Education.  The turning point for him in his gradual radicalization was the time he spent in the United States as an exchange scholar, from 1948 to 1950.  Here in the U.S. he spent time in Washington, in California, and most infamously in Greely, Colorado, where he observed and wrote on the local town dances and saw in them the moral corruption of the United States, its materialism, and its basic heretical nature.

On his return to Egypt in 1950, Qutb was energized to reframe Islam as a divinely ordained political movement that must cleanse the world of its current state of jahiliyyah.  Now jahiliyyah is an important concept from the beginning of the founding of Islam by Mohammed.  Jahiliyyah simply means a state of pagan disbelief.  It was used to describe the tribes living around Mecca who worshipped many Gods, who worshipped statues, idols and so forth.  Mohammed’s mission was to remove jahiliyyah, this lack of knowledge of the oneness of God, from the Arabia peninsula.  Qutb takes this ancient concept of jahiliyyahand says: today the 20th century suffers from jahiliyyah, from confusion, from not understanding the oneness of Allah, that he is supreme, and it is the job of true Muslims to remove this state of pagan ignorance not only from the Middle East but from the whole world as well.  Why? Because for Qutb it was not simply a question of unfaithful Arab leaders in the Middle East, but it was also a question of the West culturally invading the Milestones1Middle East, politically invading the Middle East, putting what he saw as puppets onto the thrones of Arab nations.  What we need, according to Qutb, is an enlightened vanguard.  This is interesting because he clearly took concepts such as “the vanguard” from Communist ideology.  Therefore do not treat the Jihadist ideology as sui generis, something that is unique and by itself. No, writers such as Qutb and even people before him such as Mawdudi in Pakistan (or India as it was), saw the power of other western totalitarian ideologies.  It is this ironic absorption of western concepts that otherwise would be deemed to be heretical and anathema into their new religiously framed ideology that makes Islamism a hybrid totalitarianism.  Today’s ideology of Global Jihad is therefore not simply a totalitarian man-made construct like Communism or Fascism, but one divinely-framed, and therefore a hybrid concoction.

Concepts key to Qutb’s dozens of books include the idea of global social justice as possible only through Islam:  Islam’s mission is to free all men from the tyranny of other men.  It is a global and universal mission.  What does that mean?  It means that humankind must be “liberated” from political systems run by human beings and from laws created by human beings.  In other words, Qutb believed human kind must be liberated from systems such as our own here in the United States, with its man-made laws.  Democracy is run, as Lincoln told us, by the representatives of the people for the people.  Democracy therefore cannot be sharia-compliant, for democracy represents a rejection of Allah’s Koranic law. As a result it must be destroyed. Islam’s mission is universal, Islam is a political movement that uses violence.  Jihad, according to Qutb, is not offensive but defensive.  This is an important distinction that echoes in later writers like Abdullah Azzam, and I will get to this point in a moment when we discuss bin Laden’s erstwhile boss.

Islam, according to Qutb, is a divine liberation to be realized through jihad.  We must return, therefore, to the ways of the first generation.  We must return to follow the behavior, the patterns of thought, and law, and systems that were Mohammed’s Islam.

Some quotes from his most famous book, Milestones: Islam is “ordained for the whole of mankind.”  It is the “last message for humanity.  We must return to the clear spring, the source that is the Koran and the Hadith, unsullied by Roman, Greek, Persian concepts such as democracy.”  So he is saying they must remove the influence of Islam from western concepts such as Roman law, Greek philosophy and so forth.  Only that which comes from the Koran and the collections of writings about Mohammed’s life, the Hadith, is pure.  Islam has lost its way–meaning Islam as a community has lost its way.  This holy text, the Koran, must not be deemed to be theoretical.  That is important: the Koran is a guide to praxis.  It is like what we would call an FM, a field manual.  It is not something for scholars to debate at al Azhar University, it is a guidebook for life.  It must be understood in practical terms, not theoretical terms.

Islam is a movement that will return Muslims to the correct path and away from jahiliyyah.  The mission “is not to compromise with the practices of a jahiliyyah society or pagan society.”  This is important if you think about immigration and the troubles we are seeing in Western Europe.  Qutb writes, “We cannot be loyal to a society that suffers from jahiliyyah or paganism.  Our aim is first to change ourselves so that we can change society.  We will never compromise.”  “No political system of earthly power should hinder Islam. If someone does hinder Islam’s spread then it is Islam’s duty to fight that person until he is killed or until he declares his submission.”  This is a very important declaration.  Hindering Islam could mean anything in practice. It means if anyone prevents Islamic proselytizing, that individual must be fought until he is killed or until he submits to the will of Allah. This is a theme that is echoed in the other ideologues we are going to discuss. Obstructing proselytizing is understood by Qutb and today’s jihadists as the initial aggressive act, one which justifies defensive jihad.  

Abdullah Azzam, The Defense of Muslim Lands

AbdullahLet us move on. Who is Abdullah Azzam?  Abdullah Azzam is really the creator of al Qaeda.  Abdullah Azzam is the mentor, the former boss of bin Laden.  He was the founder of something called the MAK, the Arab Service Bureau, which bin Laden would turn into al Qaeda after Azzam was assassinated.  Azzam was born in occupied Palestine in 1941 and he is important in the constellation of Jihadist ideologues in part because of his credentials.  Unlike Qutb, unlike al-Zawahiri, a ministry official and an MD, Azzam had a PhD. from Al Azhar University in Islamic Law.  This is very important in the culture of Islam. Do you have theological credentials?  When bin Laden issues a fatwa he does not actually have the authority to do so because he is a business graduate.  This is not something we think of as a powerful vulnerability, but it is.  Abdullah Azzam was one of the ideologues who was truly credentialed to make theological justifications for jihad.

Azzam’s contribution to the Jihadist canon of ideology is that he took jihad and he made it into an international brand.  He is the Steve Jobs of jihad.  He took Islamic Holy War and made it into a globally recognized brand like Apple.  After the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Azzam traveled the world recruiting people to fight in the jihad against the heathen Russian infidels in Afghanistan.  He was so successful that he managed to rally Muslims of all nationalities to Afghanistan to fight with the Afghan Mujahedeen.

His most important concepts are contained in his monograph-length fatwaThe Defense of Muslim Lands, approved by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia.  This is not just some fringe individual, some kook hanging out in the Tora Bora region. This is a man who, when he writes a fatwa of seventy pages, receives approval from one of the most important essence-of-Islamreligious authorities in the country of the two holy sites, Mecca and Medina.  So this jihadi ideologue has official backing for what he says.  His key ideas include the mythical theme of failure and rebirth in Islam.  Failure happens in Islam, why?  Very simply, because Muslims have lost their way.  If they get back onto the right track they will vanquish their enemies.  Why have they gone from having a great Caliphate, from having the Ottoman Empire, to having the first ever university (in Baghdad).   How do they fall from these heights?  The explanation is simple: Muslims have strayed from the path of true Islam and this is Allah’s recompense.  They will be unsuccessful as long as they remain untrue, according to Azzam.  In order to be powerful again, they must return to the true path, they must return to the essence of Islam.

Here it is very important to understand the concept of abrogation in the writings of Azzam and many others.  This is a core concept in Islam.  Azzam’s writings clearly demonstrate how abrogation is used.  When you hear people say, “When Bin Laden quotes from the Koran, he is just cherry-picking, he is just picking bits he likes for himself to justify violence.  That is not true Islam.”  Well, that is not how the Koran works.  In truth, the Koran is a very contradictory book.  It can say things in one sura, or verse, which are completely opposed in another sura.  Islamic Jurisprudence understands that this is a serious problem. How can an eternal, uncreated, holy text contradict itself?  The answer that was manufactured to alleviate this potential time-bomb within Islam is abrogation.  Behind abrogation is that idea that divine revelation was given to Mohammed in stages, stages reflecting the context in which Mohammed was building his empire and building his religion.  So when Mohammed begins to teach about this religion but is still politically weak and not recognized by the tribes in Mecca, and wanted also to win over Jews and Christians, the verses of the Koran are more conciliatory. Then he is invited to Yathrib, to what will be Medina. His message finds fertile ground there, his religious nation begins to grow and he returns in force not just to persuade but to conquer.  Then we have the violent Medinan suras, the so-called sword verses:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (KoranSura 9.5)

Fight against those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Koran,Sura 9.29)

So Mohammed did not advocate violence at the beginning of Islam’s establishment, because by necessity of his position of weakness, he had no other choice. These are the peaceful verses of the Koran.  When he finally goes to Yathrib, when he is recognized as a prophet and starts to build a mass-base, he becomes a very powerful military leader and returns to Mecca triumphant. That is when the sword verses are “revealed.”  That is when he can talk about violence.  The Koran’s eternal truth is thus a victim to Mohammed’s specific context in time. This is how the principle of abrogation was born to explain inherent contradictions in the text.  If a verse comes later chronologically in the Koran it supersedes the verse that contradicts it. So when bin Laden quotes later suras, famously violent ones, such as 9.29, it is not because he is being selective.  It is because he is reflecting the later truth of Mohammed’s revelation–the later context of power, the use of jihad, the need for violence to spread Islam.  And if you understand abrogation you understand how these quotes are used by jihadists today. The fact is that in the evolution of Islam, the later violent years trump the concepts of the weaker early years–permanently.

In The Defense of Muslim Lands, Azzam defines jihad as a devotional act which is obligatory.  This is the last and most important aspect of Azzam’s work.  Azzam said jihad does not have to be declared by a Caliph.  You do not need to have a head of state give you permission to fight the enemy.  He goes even further and says it is an individual obligation (fard ayn).  Jihad is not something you have to do collectively when a leader gives you permission thanks to the invasion of Afghanistan. It is an individual obligation.

Azzam does something that is very unusual in Islam.  He says you do not even have to ask your father, you do not have to ask your husband, you do not have to ask anybody’s permission. You simply have to wage jihad.  You do not need clerical approval; you do not need a head of state to say, “Now I declare holy war.” You must do it even if you are a slave and your master forbids it.  You must do it if you are poor or if you are rich. Whoever you are, it is a universal and individual obligation.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner

Let us move on to perhaps the most well known individual amongst the ones we are going to cover today, and that is the person who is deemed by many analysts to be the real heart of al Qaeda, to be the center of gravity for this organization.  Not bin Laden. Bin Laden is the charismatic leader, but the man who provides bin Laden his context, his theological underpinnings, with his arguments. That man is Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Who is this man? Again, Egypt is important. He comes from a well known family. Al-Zawahiri is a qualified surgeon, member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.  He is bin Laden’s number two or perhaps he is Al Qaeda’s number one, ideologically.  No, this is not some poor man who grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp.  This man’s family is important.  On his paternal side his grandfather was the imam of the Al-Azhar mosque in Cairo.  His maternal grandfather was the President of Cairo University and the Egyptian Ambassador to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. His grandfather’s brother was the first Secretary General of the Arab League. This is not a fringe individual.  This man comes from a very powerful and influential family.

Al-zawahAl-Zawahiri’s formative years were shaped by the Muslim Brotherhood’s fight against the secularist Egyptian system, against leaders like Nasser. In his book Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner, which is less of a fatwa and more a memoir of sorts, he explains how his radicalization occurred, how he was shaped by understanding Arab leaders as pharaohs, as secular puppets of the West and how he was shaped by the treatment that was meted out against him by the Egyptian authorities when he was arrested as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and tortured in prison.  After he was released from prison in 1984, he returned to Pakistan where he was doing charity work as a doctor.  Who was he doing it for?  For the mujahedeen.  He was doing it for the victims of Afghanistan.  Seeing what was happening to his co-religionists in Afghanistan in the 1980s was formative in his radicalization.

AymanFor Ayman al-Zawahiri, democracy is the new enemy and jihad is the tool to realize the Islamic State.  His significance as the head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad lies in the consequences of his meeting Osama bin Laden and their creating a marriage of convenience between an organization that was salafist and parochially jihadist – in the Egyptian context, fighting the Near Enemy – and an organization, such as al Qaeda, that was Wahhabist and is about the Far Enemy, about Global Jihad.  Here we have a confluence of two methodologies, two contexts, the local theater and the global.  And this is why al Qaeda, the organization that develops later, is so influential in redefining the Near Enemy versus the Far Enemy.

Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner was completed around the time of 9/11 and smuggled out in October of 2001 to London where it was published in a Saudi newspaper, serialized over a period of days.  AQ understands information operations. Zawahiri had a whole book ready, so that when Special Forces and CIA units deployed into Afghanistan, everybody could read in English what Zawahiri had to say. Key concepts of his seminal work begin with the statement that human beings cannot be sovereign.  Sovereignty is Allah’s alone, therefore democracy must be destroyed as it posits man’s sovereignty over man.  Democracy is nothing more than a pagan religion.  It is a form of jahiliyyah.  Secondly, the line between internal and external enemies is an illusion.  The near enemy is a tool of the far enemy.  For example, the King of Jordan is not an internal enemy, he is not a near enemy, but just a puppet of America.  There is no distinction between the two, they must be understood as a whole: the enemy is everywhere.  Thirdly, the battle for Islam must go global.  All Muslims must engage. The message is clear from the very title of Zawahiri’s book: Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner. Muslims must all unite under one flag and not the flag of one nation but the flag of the last true prophet.  Rulers who defy Islam must be exposed, and all Muslims must be held responsible for defending Islam.  It does not matter if you are living comfortably in London, Berlin, or Minnesota–as a Muslim you are responsible too.  Without a Caliphate or Muslim super-state there cannot be victory.  At the end of his book Zawahiri states, “In our means, methods, and resources we must combine patience with infliction of mass casualties and the best method to do this is suicide attacks.” ….. “This confrontation with Islam’s enemies must be to the last drop of blood.”

Brigadier S.K. Malik, The Quranic Concept of Power

Now from the most famous jihadi thinker to the person you probably have not heard of, or at least who most people have not heard of: Brigadier S.K. Malik.  I cannot show you a photo because not even that supercomputer, Google, could find me one. Malik was a member of the Pakistani Army. That is all we know, and the fact that he wrote a very important book.  This book is the The Quranic Concept of Power, published in 1979.

QuranicLet me summarize why this man is important to you.  Imagine walking into Borders or Barnes & Noble and seeing a book written by Gen. David Petraeus, with a foreword by a member of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the preface by none other than President Obama.  Probably an important book, right?  Well, that is The Quranic Concept of Power. It was written by a serving General, with the foreword by the Advocate General of Pakistan, and a preface by none other than General Zia Haq, who was not only the Commander of the Pakistan Army but also Pakistan’s President from 1977 to 1988.  You may not have heard of Malik, but just think about the people who endorsed his book: a person who represents supreme justice in Pakistan and the individual who is the head of state and commander.  So it is an important book.  The preface by the Advocate General is thirteen pages long and is almost as important as the rest of the book.  Let us look at some of the concepts in the preface and the concepts of General Malik.

This is the only modern book authored by a Muslim that deals with war at the strategic level and which combines military theory with divine theological explanation.  This is not von Clausewitz. This is not the art of war in any western sense.  This is the science of warfare as ordained by Allah.  It is non-western and very difficult for us to mentally compare to our strategic paradigms, but that makes it all the more important for us to understand.  Think of it as a hybrid of von Clausewitz’s On War and a book on End Times evangelization all wrapped up together.  The work does not, therefore, fit into our world view or categories.

Additionally its significance lies in its advocacy of terror as a weapon willed by Allah.  Malik is very clear on this: the center of gravity is the soul of our infidel enemy.  It is the enemy’s faith, and the best tool ordained by Allah to destroy our enemy’s soul is terror.  So we have a serving General in the Pakistani Army telling us that 9/11 is the way to wage war.  War today is not to be understood in terms of western strategic concepts such as Land Air battle.  It is not Fire and Maneuver, or nuclear deterrence. It is 9/11.  It is terror.  According to Malik, striking terror in the soul of the enemy is the most effective divinely ordained weapon they have to use against their enemies.  Destroying the faith of the enemy is the object of war, according to Malik, and Jihad is the tool.  To illustrate his point, Malik described numerous battles that Mohammed engaged in, along with other conflicts in the history of Islam.

From General Zia’s foreword once can also garner other key messages of the book: “All Muslims must play a role in jihad, which is a collective responsibility of the whole Muslim ummah, not just soldiers.” Remember, this is from the President of Pakistan.  The Advocate General wrote in his foreword, “The purpose of war in Islam is to serve God’s divine purpose. Jihad is waged to establish Allah’s supremacy.”  Think about how sharply this contrasts with how we teach war at our academies and our war colleges.  War serves the purposes of the state for us. We teach von Clausewitz’s dictum that war is a continuation of politics by other means.  This book says the very reverse: “Jihad is the duty of the believer to carry Allah’s message forward.”  If a person is trying to move the message of Islam forward and he is obstructed in that effort, he is entitled to retaliate.  What does that mean in plain English? How do you explain that in simple words?  It means violence is required if you cannot proselytize.  If someone obstructs the spread of Islam, that is an act of war. If Muslims cannot spread the word of Allah war obtains.  That is most definitely not how we understand war.  For Christians and Jews, spreading our divine message is an indirect non-kinetic issue. We do not proselytize at the end of a gun, not least because we have learned it does not work, aside from the theological and moral indefensibility of it from a Judaic or Christian viewpoint. For the jihadist, spreading Islam and having someone obstruct you in that process is an attack on Islam.  Therefore you are already in a defensive posture and nobody has used a gun on the other side. War is thus triggered simply because the other does not want to be a Muslim.

The divine context of war as explained by the Koran is predicated on the spread of justice.  “Faith in Allah must be altogether and everywhere.  Jihad is a continuous and never ending struggle waged on all fronts including political, economic, social, psychological, domestic, moral, and spiritual.”  Is that how we understand war? The last front, spiritual, is where Malik is most controversial and this is where he starts to talk about terror as the center of gravity.  For Malik, war is an activity aimed at the human heart, at man’s soul, at his spirit, at his faith.  That is not how the West teaches war.  Take out the enemy’s general staff, establish air supremacy, put boots on the ground, those are the kind of things we understand under war.  But for Malik, war is about attacking the human heart, man’s soul, his spirit and faith.  Echoing Sun Tzu, he observes that peace is simply the preparation for war and is vastly more important than the activity of fighting.  What you do in peacetime to prepare is much more important than the kinetic violent actions of shooting people and blowing things up.  What are the consequences of this statement?  This means that Islam is perpetually at war and that peace is simply the preparation for war.

For General Malik, for his patrons and acolytes, jihad is clearly a holy war for both sides of the engagement.  When they say they are fighting a holy war, the conventional wisdom is to just say that that is their distortion. But if our enemy is aiming at our faith system, if they are aiming at our souls, it is de facto a holy war on our side as well because that is what the enemy has chosen to destroy.

Conclusion

What are we to conclude from all of this?  Why are these four writers important?  Here is the take-home:  AQ is just a small part of a much larger and older movement.  That movement has a plan to destroy our system using all means from the list given by Malik, not just violence.  This includes political and economic warfare and very sophisticated and fast information operations.  This conflict that we are in now, in our tenth year, is potentially more deadly and more dangerous than the Cold War, because the enemy is totalitarian, but he is not a secular godless totalitarian like Hitler or Stalin. This totalitarian has Allah on his side.

The sad truth is that we seem to be going backwards. Take just these three quotes from the 9/11 Commission report:

-       Our enemy “is sophisticated, patient, disciplined and lethal.”

-       “[T]he institutions charged with protecting our national security did not understand how grave this threat could be, and did not adjust their policies, plans, and practices to deter or defeat it.”

-       “In short, the United States has to help defeat an ideology, not just a group of people.

I am told that the U.S. Government’s policy now is to see our salvation in negotiations with people like Qaradawi, to engage the Soft Jiahdists.  If that is the Intelligence Community’s strategy and White House’s answer, then we have already lost.  If people who are the seminal clerical advocates for Jihad for the Muslim Brotherhood and the lead clerics for Al-Jazeera are going to be our saviors then we have surrendered.  If you do not want to give up, remember this. This is what we have to understand.

There are violent Jihadists and there are non-kinetic Soft Jihadists.  There is AQ and there is the OIC and the Muslim Brotherhood. They are taking different pathways to the same destination: the imposition of sharia law wherever they can make it happen and to the creation of a Caliphate.

Both groups believe in Jihad. Both groups are driven by the objectives Qutb, Azzam, Zawahiri and Malik espoused. They simply represent two faces of the same foe, an enemy whose doctrines and strategies we must begin studying in earnest.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka is Military Affairs Fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and member of the Strategic Advisers Group of the U.S. Atlantic Council. Since 9/11 he has trained over 800 counter-terrorism officers from more than 50 nations including Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a former member of the British Territorial Army’s Intelligence & Security Group (22 Coy) and lectures frequently on counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency at such institutions as West Point, Fort Leavenworth’s School of Advanced Military Studies, U.S. Special Operations Command and the National Counter Terrorism Center. Dr. Gorka is co-editor of the newly released Toward a Grand Strategy Against Terrorism (McGraw Hill, 2010). Disclaimer: The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Defense, any U.S. government agency, or the Westminster Institute. The information presented here may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline is requested.

Comedy Film Triggered 21st Century Terrorism

20130618_ester_williams_red_skeltonby LT. COLONEL JAMES G. ZUMWALT, USMC (RET):

Championship swimmer and film star Esther Williams died on June 6th at age 91. Never under the illusion her unique genre of “aqua ballet” films were designed to win her an Oscar, she probably died unaware a song earning an Oscar from one of her movies provided the spark for 21st century terrorism!

Williams starred in the 1949 musical romantic comedy “Neptune’s Daughter.” The song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside,” written for the film by Frank Loesser, became an immediate hit.

Around the same time, Islamist Egyptian educator Sayyid Qutb came to the U.S. to pursue a master’s degree at a college in Greeley, Colorado. Qutb’s pursuit of a degree in the U.S. was motivated by his conflict with the Cairo government over his strict Islamic beliefs and efforts to implement them in Egypt.

The introverted Qutb was welcomed in Greeley where townspeople invited him to a church social. After dinner, the lights were turned down low and “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” was played. Men and women began slow dancing. The act of couples embracing in such a manner with their bodies closely entwined, skin touching skin, ran contrary to the morals of Islam. This observation so upset Qutb that, upon returning to Egypt in 1950, he wrote extensively about America’s decadence.

Qutb’s essay “The America That I Have Seen” included a description of what he saw at the church social. It reads like a cheap novel rather than an academic’s attempt to analyze a foreign culture. Particularly critical of women, Qutb wrote, “The American girl is well acquainted with her body’s seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs-and she shows all this and does not hide it.” (Unsurprisingly, Qutb remained a life- long bachelor, claiming no woman worthy of him.)

This essay triggered a litany of works by Qutb in which he addressed the ills of Western society and the need to impose Shariah law to cleanse Muslim society of any Western influence. Soon after his return home, he joined the Muslim Brotherhood, which held very similar anti-Western views.

Eventually, Egyptian President Gamal Nasser tired of Qutb’s continuing efforts to impose an Islamist state upon his government, for it ran afoul of his own secular nationalist ideology. Nasser eventually had Qutb arrested in 1966 and executed.

But the story did not end with Qutb’s death.

It was only years after the fundamentalist’s death that his writings gained interest among Muslims. His teachings impacted two very prominent students-Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The former, who declared war against the United States in 1998, led al-Qaeda until his death in 2011; the latter has since replaced him. Heavily influencing the two as well was “Milestones”-a book written by Qutb in 1964

Read more: Family Security Matters

 

CAIR amplifies its message on website promoting Islamist ideologue Sayyid Qutb

Center For Security Policy, By Adam Savit:

This week, CAIR’s (Council on American-Islamic Relations) “American Muslim News Brief”– a publication distributed by mass-email– linked to a piece entitled “Challenges Test American Muslims” at OnIslam.net.  The piece is full of standard CAIR boilerplate, quoting Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper on supposed “Islamophobia machines” and the “virtual cottage industry of Islam-bashers and fearmongers.”

[CLICK FOR IMAGE DETAIL]

cair_qutb

However, lurking alongside the “Islamophobia” story on the front page was an article that might raise more eyebrows: “End of a Homosexual Town (True Story).”  It is a theological commentary on the Islamic version of the story of Lot, even featuring a detailed consideration of bodily fluids.

What the casual reader may not notice is that the article is an antique.  The author is Sayyid Qutb, billed benignly as “Muslim Intellectual – Egypt.”  OnIslam.net does not mention that Qutb was a leading member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, author of the seminal Islamist workMilestones, a key intellectual inspiration for al-Qaeda, and was eventually put to death in 1966 for plotting the assassination of secular Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser.

OnIslam.net seems to have great affection for the inflammatory works of Qutb.  In fact it has published more than 100 of his treatises going back to 2006.

One would think that CAIR– at pains to disassociate itself from anything Muslim Brotherhood-related since it was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation/Hamas terrorist funding trial– would be more careful about who it goes to for positive press.

CAIR’s message amplification via Islamist intermediaries is not limited to Sunni Muslim Brotherhood media outlets.  CAIR has also been known to cross the sectarian divide in utilizing Shi’a Islamist television.  In 2011, I documented for Breitbart’s Big Peace that 22 of the 30 videos on CAIR’s YouTube channel that featured CAIR talking heads were produced by PressTV, the state-owned English language propaganda arm of the Iranian government.

CAIR’s currency relies on a slick media image that features style over substance, and slippery platitudes over truthful answers.  The more the American public becomes educated about theirbackground associations, the less credibility their surface messages will hold.

Boston Bomber’s Mosque Has Muslim Brotherhood Ties

Islamic Society of Boston (Photo: Google Maps)

Islamic Society of Boston (Photo: Google Maps)

By Ryan Mauro:

Dzhokar Tsarnaev, who has been arrested for the terrorist bombings in Boston, attended the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) in Cambridge, a mosque with strong Muslim Brotherhood links. The ISB Cultural Center, which is at a separate location, is even run by a group that federal prosecutors said in 2008 “was founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

An ISB attendee reports last seeing Tsarnaev there during Ramadan last year. It is unclear if his brother, the other bomber, also attended the mosque. The ISB has links to the Muslim Brotherhood, has had radical leadership and promotes anti-Western themes.

Islamic Society of Boston's invitation to event with author attacks the West's War on Terror

For instance, the Islamic Society of Boston recently invitedjournalist Victoria Brittain to speak at the mosque, who in an article she wrote on MichaelMoore.com wrotethat the War on Terror is a “war on Islam” and that Muslims in the West face widespread persecution. In her article, Brittain also criticized British security services who “returned to a post-9/11 stance on overdrive” in the aftermath of the 2005 London subway bombings, referred to as the “7/7″ attacks.

ISB teaching is largely based on Islamists like Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi and Sayyid Qutb, the Brotherhood cleric who influenced Osama Bin Laden. It was reportedin 2008 that the Muslim Brotherhood and the Pakistani Islamist group, Jamaat-e-Islami, “are the prominent belief systems. The popular websites used by members, and recommended by mosque leaders, are mostly fundamentalist, and rabidly homophobic.”

Read more at The Clarion Project

Article In Leading Bangladeshi Daily Traces The Roots Of ‘Islamic Totalitarianism’

14934

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Only One Power Determines The Course Of History: The Power Of Ideas”; “One Needs To Identify The Enemy As The Vicious Ideology Of Islamic Totalitarianism… That Needs To Be Defeated By A Stronger, Freedom-Embracing Ideology”

MEMRI, March 10, 2013:

In the Islamic nation of Bangladesh, the secular government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has initiated a series of measures against Islamic fundamentalist groups and terrorist organizations in recent years. One of her government’s key initiatives has been the establishment of an International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). The tribunal has tried several Bangladeshi leaders for collaborating with the Pakistan Army in committing crimes against humanity during the 1971 war, which resulted in the secession of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh.

The country’s secular forces are aligned with the government, while the right-wing forces are led by the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) of former Prime Minister Begum Khalida Zia. Leaders from the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami have been indicted by the tribunal for crimes such as rape and murder during the 1971 liberation war.

In early 2013, as the tribune convicted several leaders, violent protests were organized by the rival groups in the capital Dhaka, leading to the killings of dozens of civilians and policemen. Among the top people convicted of various war crimes and sentenced to death and life imprisonment are Jamaat-e-Islami leaders Abul Kalam Azad, Abdul Quader Mollah, and Delwar Hossain Sayedee.

Supporters of BNP and members of the Jamaat’s students wing Islami Chhatra Shibir have organized protests against the government, while liberal forces in the country are led by Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League, which came to power following elections in 2008. During several rounds of protests by both sides, tens of thousands of Bangladeshis have turned out in Shahbag Square of Dhaka, as well as in various small towns. The protests are also seen as a struggle between liberal and fundamentalist forces in the country.

In a recent article, a Bangladeshi daily traced the roots of what it called “Islamic totalitarianism” in Bangladesh. The article, “The Rise Of Islamic Totalitarianism,” was written by Shahrazad Jafer and published by Daily Ittefaq, a leading newspaper. The following are excerpts:[1]

“A Power Is Rising Slowly In Bangladesh; It Violates Our Liberty… The Adversary Is Not A Man But An Ideology [Of Islamic Totalitarianism]”; 11th Century Theologian Al-Ghazali Advocated “Unquestioning Faith… Faith Became The Absolute Authority, The Final Arbiter; Reason Was Abandoned”

“A power is rising slowly in Bangladesh; it violates our liberty and life. It violates our very existence. The adversary is not a man but an ideology; the man is but a mere tool. To defeat it, one needs to understand its history, identity, and goal. With razor-sharp clarity, one needs to know its adversary and to know that the only defense against it is secularism.

“Rebirth of Faith: Al‑Ghazali

“The Islamic Golden Age from 8th to 12th century was once the pinnacle of science, philosophy, and art. The people of Baghdad were studying and debating the works of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. They were fascinated by the teachings of Aristotle on logic and attempted to combine both logic and faith.

“[Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad] Al-Ghazali [1058-1111], a Muslim philosopher, was distressed by the conflict between Islam (submission to faith) and the Golden Age (reason and science). He sought solitude in the desert in search of an answer to this dilemma. He returned with a simple answer: unquestioning faith. Consequently, faith became the absolute authority, the final arbiter. Reason was abandoned and criticism [became] impossible since we could not question an infallible god.

“This was the rebirth of faith into the Muslim society and the end of the age of Enlightenment. Al-Ghazali became known as the man who saved Islam and was given the unique title of ‘Hujjat-Al-Islam’ – The Proof of Islam.”

Read more at MEMRI

Anti-Semitism in Newton (MA) Schools

by Charles Jacobs:

Last year, the Wellesley Middle School was caught in a nasty controversy when  my organization, Americans for Peace and Tolerance (APT), released a shocking  video of a student trip to the Roxbury megamosque.

Viewers could see mosque staffers teach the students unadulterated propaganda  – among other things, that Muslim women got the vote before women in the West.  They also saw Wellesley boys prostrating themselves to Allah alongside Muslim  men. The controversy was covered extensively on Boston TV and radio, and the  video was seen by almost 500,000 people on YouTube.

As a result, Wellesley schools no longer visit that mosque. Good. But we also  asked Wellesley school administrators to go back to the students and correct the  false information they were taught, and then to explain what propaganda is.

They refused, and as far as we know, a class full of Wellesley students still  believe these falsehoods and don’t know they were lied to. Why are school  administrators afraid to tell the truth?

Now, the Newton public school system is enmeshed in a similar controversy  about deceptive lessons concerning Muslim women. This time there is an  anti-Semitic theme. As with Wellesley, the Newton school administrators are  refusing to tell the children they were lied to.

It began when a Newton parent learned that his daughter was being taught – in  a school handout — that Israelis incarcerate, torture and kill Palestinian  women.

The material came from “The Arab World Studies Notebook,” which has been  condemned by serious educators as blatant propaganda. How did this get into the  curriculum?

Margo Einstein, Newton’s pro- Jewish “community organizer,” sparked a growing  and organized effort to challenge the Newton schools. She has gathered a team of  parents and researchers to review the textbooks and circular materials that are  being used to teach about Arabs, Jews, Muslims and Christians in our  schools.

As a taxpaying Newton resident, I was allowed to address the School Committee  last week. A summary of my remarks (below) sketches out the problem and should  give enough examples to make us all concerned:

“Teachers in the Newton schools gave students a handout that defamed Israel’s  Jews as monsters and savages who imprison, torture and kill Palestinian women.  This is not only untrue, the opposite is true, that is, if you want to give  students truly horrific examples of violence, murder and intolerance in the  Middle East, you have all you can possibly want in Palestinian, Arab and Muslim  behavior and history. And not just history – just review the violence of the  Arab Spring, the daily slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and  Syria.

“But as the Newton schools are guided by what is politically correct, our  students cannot learn about any examples of non-Western misconduct. (You are  programming our students not to judge the “Other” – only people like us.)

“For example, Arabs today have black slaves in Sudan and Mauritania.

“But you cannot teach that truth. It does not fit the politically correct  narrative, that evil in the world comes from white Europeans – and everyone else  is a victim. If you point out the obvious, you are a bigot, blaming the victim.  “Newton students come from a culture that would not normally abandon blacks who  are enslaved today. Nor would they abandon women or gays who are oppressed, but  your politically correct education ensures that our children will not learn  about the plights of these people in the Islamic realm, or anywhere outside the  West for that matter – or that they will be afraid to speak about it. You will  have taught them that.

“But you (Newton schools) did give students ‘A Muslim Primer,’ which touts as  the best guide to understanding Islam and human rights, by the Egyptian scholar  Sayyid Qutb. But it turns out that Sayyid Qutb is the intellectual father of the  Muslim Brotherhood. His books are filled with calls for Jihad against Christian,  Jewish and secular Muslim societies. The book you gave them promotes the man who  inspired Osama bin Laden.

“Women in the Muslim world are third-class citizens. But nobody will explain  this in Newton to our students. It’s taboo.

“Instead, Newton North students have been given handouts describing the  Muslim world as, I kid you not, ‘a world where womanhood reigns supreme,’ where  women are freer than Western women, who apparently ‘have less control over their  destiny.’

“Gays are hanged in public squares in Iran, and Christians are besieged by  mobs in Cairo, driven from Iraq and terrified in Damascus. But these essential  facts are not politically correct and therefore taboo in Newton schools.

Read more at Family Security Matters

Contributor Charles  Jacobs is a  political activist who co-founded the American  Anti-Slavery Group and also the  David Project, and also the organization Americans  for Peace and  Tolerance.

 

The Madness of Qutb’s ‘Milestones’

Sayyid Qutb was a selfless, sexless, empty little man, a mad and maddened  creature who annihilated himself and advocated the annihilation of anyone or  anything that had an identity. A desolate world of ruins and corpses and bowing  figures is the only world such a creature could feel comfortable in.

by EDWARD  CLINE:

Reading Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones to pen a serious, informative, and  critical review was an intellectual and literary chore I expected to be a cinch.  Having finished reading this short, 160-page encomium for Islam, it is not so  much a cinch as an exercise in nausea. Imagine assigning oneself the task of  comparing a set of amusement park horror houses and awarding them points on how  realistic their artificial ogres, witches, and ghouls were and how successfully  they caused people to scream, cringe, or have strokes.

That is, how does one go about discussing with a straight face the  pathological meanderings of a very disturbed and malevolent man, knowing that  his meanderings have served as an intellectual sanction for terrorism, death,  destruction, and the ongoing Islamic jihad against the West? What makes it so nauseous a chore is not the English translation of Qutb’s screed. I do not  think the quality of the translation matters, because there is no way any  translator could do the work justice other than just translating it straight  from the Arabic. There are no elusive nuances to catch and objectify, there is  no “poetry” or literary value to be found and captured in the work. It is the  subject matter itself that is nauseous. Milestones is the Islamic  equivalent of the mental ravings of psychotic murderers such as Richard Speck,  Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, and Ted Kaczynski.

Milestones, published in 1964* (Ma’alim fi al-Tariq),  purports to adhere to and advance the cause and spread of a moral code that will  “save” mankind. The book is actually a manifesto for nihilism that guarantees  man’s enslavement and the eradication of any and all who refuse to submit to  Islam.

I have been writing for years saying that Islam is fundamentally a nihilist  ideology (and that President Barack Obama is a practicing nihilist, as well,  thus his symbiosis with Islam). Nihilism is an ideology that recognizes the good  and acts to destroy the good, because it is the good. Qua nihilism, the  destruction of the good is not haphazard or accidental. It is conscious and  deliberate. Instances of Islam’s core nihilism are legion. At the moment, I can  think of no better example of it than Lara  Logan’s description of her ordeal in Tahir   Square, Cairo, on  February 11, 2011. As she describes it, her attackers, all Muslims (whether they  were government goons or anti-Mubarak celebrants, is irrelevant), sought to  literally pull her to pieces and to make it as painful as possible, and in the  end destroy her. Nihilism is a system of negation; her attackers wished to  extinguish her existence.

Sayyid Qutb would have approved. To learn why, read these two accounts of his  experiences in the United States here  and here.

Who was Sayyid Qutb?

Qutb was a selfless little man, a “moderate” Muslim, who came out of Egypt to  absorb Western methods of education, and returned to Egypt convinced that the  West needed to be educated about the true nature of Islam, even if that pedagogy  meant killing, maiming, and enslaving non-believers. He developed a special  animus for the United States, for that is where he went to learn about Western  education. Long before any mullah deemed America the “Great Satan,” Qutb’s  observations of the country during his two-year sojourn here (1948-1950) caused  him to mark it for jihad and its cultural and/or violent conversion to  Islam.

That is, he marked it for death. For that is all Islam is – a nihilist state  of existence for Muslim zombies and their looted and subservient  non-believers.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk novels set in  England  and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period, of several detective and  suspense  novels, and three collections of his commentaries and columns, all  available on  Amazon Books. His essays, book reviews, and other articles have  appeared in The  Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics and other  publications.  He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason, Family Security  Matters,  Capitalism Magazine and other Web publications.